BACKGROUND: Using questionnaires to assess children's residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) may result in misclassification from recall and response bias. Questionnaire data have frequently been validated against urinary cotinine measurements, but rarely against actual measurements of residential air nicotine. OBJECTIVE: To compare questionnaire reported smoking with air nicotine concentrations in a large population of children and with urinary cotinine levels in a subpopulation; and to assess the potential impact of the symptom status of the children on the agreement between different measures of exposure. METHODS: The authors assessed residential exposure to ETS in 347 German, 335 Dutch, and 354 Swedish preschool and schoolchildren by questionnaire and air nicotine measurements, and in a subset of 307 German children by urinary cotinine measurements. They then compared the different measures of ETS exposure. RESULTS: In all countries, air nicotine concentrations increased with increasing questionnaire reported smoking in a dose-response fashion. Specificity and negative predictive values of questionnaire reports for nicotine concentrations were excellent. Sensitivity and positive predictive values were moderate to good. Excluding occasional smokers, the overall percentage of homes misclassified was 6.9%, 6.7%, and 5.1% in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, respectively. Similar results were found for the agreement of urinary cotinine concentrations with questionnaire reports and air nicotine levels. There was no indication of underreporting by parents of symptomatic children. CONCLUSION: Despite some misclassification, questionnaire reports are an inexpensive and valid estimate of residential ETS exposure among preschool and school children.
BACKGROUND: Using questionnaires to assess children's residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) may result in misclassification from recall and response bias. Questionnaire data have frequently been validated against urinary cotinine measurements, but rarely against actual measurements of residential air nicotine. OBJECTIVE: To compare questionnaire reported smoking with air nicotine concentrations in a large population of children and with urinary cotinine levels in a subpopulation; and to assess the potential impact of the symptom status of the children on the agreement between different measures of exposure. METHODS: The authors assessed residential exposure to ETS in 347 German, 335 Dutch, and 354 Swedish preschool and schoolchildren by questionnaire and air nicotine measurements, and in a subset of 307 German children by urinary cotinine measurements. They then compared the different measures of ETS exposure. RESULTS: In all countries, air nicotine concentrations increased with increasing questionnaire reported smoking in a dose-response fashion. Specificity and negative predictive values of questionnaire reports for nicotine concentrations were excellent. Sensitivity and positive predictive values were moderate to good. Excluding occasional smokers, the overall percentage of homes misclassified was 6.9%, 6.7%, and 5.1% in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, respectively. Similar results were found for the agreement of urinary cotinine concentrations with questionnaire reports and air nicotine levels. There was no indication of underreporting by parents of symptomatic children. CONCLUSION: Despite some misclassification, questionnaire reports are an inexpensive and valid estimate of residential ETS exposure among preschool and school children.
Authors: J Heinrich; G Bolte; B Hölscher; J Douwes; I Lehmann; B Fahlbusch; W Bischof; M Weiss; M Borte; H E Wichmann Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: B Brunekreef; B P Leaderer; R van Strien; M Oldenwening; H A Smit; L Koopman; M Kerkhof Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Andrea von Berg; Sibylle Koletzko; Armin Grübl; Birgit Filipiak-Pittroff; H-Erich Wichmann; Carl Peter Bauer; Dietrich Reinhardt; Dietrich Berdel Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Elena Boldo; Sylvia Medina; Mattias Oberg; Vladimíra Puklová; Odile Mekel; Kristiina Patja; Dafina Dalbokova; Michal Krzyzanowski; Manuel Posada Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Muhammad T Salam; W James Gauderman; Rob McConnell; Pi-Chu Lin; Frank D Gilliland Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-08-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Tianshi David Wu; Michelle N Eakin; Cynthia S Rand; Emily P Brigham; Gregory B Diette; Nadia N Hansel; Meredith C McCormack Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2019 Mar/Apr
Authors: Jason E Lang; Allen J Dozor; Janet T Holbrook; Edward Mougey; Sankaran Krishnan; Shawn Sweeten; Robert A Wise; W Gerald Teague; Christine Y Wei; David Shade; John J Lima Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2013-01-12
Authors: Simon Rückinger; Peter Rzehak; Chih-Mei Chen; Stefanie Sausenthaler; Sibylle Koletzko; Carl-Peter Bauer; Ute Hoffmann; Ursula Kramer; Dietrich Berdel; Andrea von Berg; Otmar Bayer; H-Erich Wichmann; Rüdiger von Kries; Joachim Heinrich Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.031